I have no idea how it works, but apparently it does.. sometimes…
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252435884/Chances-of-suc...
i think this is under-emphasized for people unfamiliar with them.
I think SAP and related modules are "solidified business processes", and their consultants and sales persuade your CxO level people that switching business processes will improve overall efficiency (and somewhat hint at standardization, so that the CxO will have experience at that domain when switching jobs!).
But of course, it's not really true - best practice business processes are an illusion imho, and it will turn out that the subtle differences have to be implemented individually.
They're absolutely colossal in size
My ex-girlfiend's father is an engineer there in Baden-Wurttemberg - I'd characterise them as closer to something like Oracle rather than Salesforce
They feel more like IBM, but more crusty, more conservative and more corporate.
Working for a railway on anything touching SAP sounds like an absolute nightmare of wasting decades threading water with nothing to show for it.
(I saw a bit of SAP inside DB… nope nope nope)
Edit: no offence intended to anyone at SAP, IBM or Oracle - I do think each company has a legitimate role to play for rather different markets
Most ERPs can be quite flexible too, there's a ton of customisation possible. And a whole cottage industry of addons and integrations for every imaginable integration or business model. But the problem is you really screw yourself with added complexity when it's time to update. Then you're really condemning yourself to spending millions on consultants at a time when you might not have the resources. And postponement leads to technical debt.
Hence the idea of adapting the business to the system. Making sense too if you think about it this way: you're not really just buying a system but a methodology.
And another thing is that it makes integration with other companies easier. Makes the company more easy to sell or too acquire other companies and integrate them.
It was developed a very long time ago, it has a huge adoption in large companies and a few years ago when they migrated from R3 to Hana one of their own people told us in an architecture review meeting that they have over 300,000 built in reports to migrate.
In many cases companies are adopting SAP because "nobody was ever fired for buying IBM". Anecdotical, the company where my brother works is implementing SAP and changed all existing networking gear with Cisco because "this is what big companies do". They threw away brand new equipment and spent several millions on the SAP implementation that is still not working, forecasting they will pay even more millions to make it work then millions per year to use it.
(and bloat, and McKinsey infiltration into many a large F100+)
--
They are old school, entrenched, but yu would jump off a cliff supporting any of this legacy stuff. It will persist as the inertia on huge systems is heavy.
But yeah - I wonder if they are signing any NEW business... aside from military bunker grade stuff (which will cost as much as the bunker to implement) I dont see a reason to implement (not because I am bashing, but because I dont know the modern business case reqs that would call for SAP)
What is McKinsey infiltration?
Basically: You have a problem; Oracle/SAP says they'll solve it for you. Now you have a second problem; they say McKinsey'll solve it for you. Now you have …
God I love etymology:
"-Stasize"
**To stand on a hilltop once. To be, this time, on advance. To reach the highest clouds. To touch the limits of space. To out-grow skyscrapers. And make them look at my face.**
So FB is becoming a meta-stacious being..
That which wishes to control from a vantage, or t corrupt from within the minds... The light house.